Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vicious Love · 07-08-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilgameshEnkidu

So you agree that birds 'interrelated' from dinosaurs then?

Or that the Skitty I become will one day interrelate into a breathtaking Delcatty?

show_no_mercy · 07-08-2007, 03:39 PM

I'd like to know what samurai's definition of "evolution" is other than "ITS SUPERNATURALZ! LOLOLZ"

Evolution, as far as science is concerned, means "change". We have no idea what you mean when you say "evolution". As far as we know, your ranting amounts to nothing more than "change in allele frequency over time is supernatural" which is obviously false.

Chuck Rightmire · 07-08-2007, 03:46 PM

Hell, this BS is simply rewriting the terminology. His involvement of nature is just using a set of three words rather than god in his explanation and his interrelationship is evolution. He seems to be postulating "nature" as the aware entity in itself that most religions proclaim as a god. All he's doing is trying to corrupt "evolution" to take in into disrepute. This thread deserves to be locked at this point.

RAFH · 07-08-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

People, this is the guy who claimed to have read Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution in four hours, and could find no evidence at all in the entire thing for macroevolution.

In my view, that statement removes any conceivable credibility Samurai could possibly have.

We don't know yet if that observed facts are really evolution, creation or interrelation.

You called it macroevolution bcause u believe in Evolution as natural science. Since I don't (and already proven it) believe that Evolution Theory is not natural then, it must fall to my definition and category.

UNLESS you prove to me that Evolution is really natural, then, I can agree that those so called facts of macroevolution is really natural.

Do you have any idea what you have written above, particularly the underlined parts?

In your second paragraph, taking out the double negatives (bolded) in "Since I don't (and already proven it) believe that Evolution Theory is not natural then, ... ... ." you have "since I believe that Evolution Theory (your term) is natural then ... ... "

So, in effect, you have just argued against yourself.

And, no, it doesn't fall to your "definition and category". Sorry, you are a nobody. The world already has substantial consensus on definitions, generally found in common dictionaries. You can create whatever definitions you wish, but the world will ignore them and, consequently, you.

I could just as easily state "god is shit" because in my definition god is defined as "human excrement". So, in my book, god is shit. That doesn't make it so. Nor would I have accomplished anything other than to have the rest of the world think I am an idiot and an asshole and an arrogant idiot and asshole at that. So, let's get back to reality and start using common definitions and usages of terms like all the real people out there.

Then in your last paragraph, you clearly state "UNLESS you prove to me that Evolution is really natural, then, I can agree that those so called facts of macroevolution is natural." which getting rid of the above underlined fluff translates as "Unless you can prove Evolution is natural then I can agree those facts of macroevolution are natural." Again refuting your own claims.

Why don't you learn how to make consistent statements and how to type and use proper grammar and punctuation and how to present coherent arguments and then learn to understand your definitions are meaningless unless they are agreed to by the world at large. Then we might be able to have a discussion. But as it is, your arguments are incoherent and based on your own, uncommon definitions and your statements disavow your arguments.

_Naturalist_ · 07-08-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

I knew that some of you were shocked to read this bold statement of mine. Some of you maybe laugh. Of course, I laugh, too! But since I am a Christian, it is not commanded to us by our God in the Bible to fool people just to gain profit of any sort.

Purely for pleasure then?

Quote:

I love science and since science had done a lot of good things to me and to the world, (and I believe that our God is using good science to improve human condition)

What a strange thing to say. Science is being practised by humans, and humans are using science and technology to improve our lives. To claim that your favourite god should get all the credit is really, really weird.

Quote:

then, we had to make science the real naturalistic science, if the agreed limit of science is for natural explanation only. I always believed that real science (to be taught in schools and in public) must be reliable, realistic, empirical and natural. For the purpose of simplicity, clarity and balance to all human.

What else than the natural world is there?

Quote:

ALL of us agreed that science must deal with naturalistic explanation only. Beyond what nature itself/herself can do is already supernatural. And since our topic of discussion is Evolution Theory, then, we need to see if this theory is really inclined to naturalistic view of science. But when we say “natural explanation”, strictly speaking, where should we look for? Whom should we look for? Who is authorized to say that this is natural and this is not natural? Since natural explanation is invoking the presence and participation of nature, then, logically and strictly speaking, nature itself/herself should settle this problem. So, logically and reasonably speaking, nature MUST DIRECTLY communicates to human scientists or vise versa and guarantees that what human scientists are seeing are really caused by nature. For if “nature’s guarantee” is not present in naturalistic explanation of science presented to us by human Evolution Theory scientists, then, we cannot simply label science explanation as “natural”.
In another words, “nature”, yes, literally, “nature” must literally speak to human scientists. Or the human scientists literally must make a dialogue to “nature” and ask them if the observed changes in some animals are really caused by her/it and if they are calling it Theory of Evolution. OR the human scientists will transform themselves into the concerned specified species in consideration, interact with those species’ world, ask scientific and logical questions, and transform back again to humans, and presented their findings to human. This is natural explanation and natural processes, basically. This is the hard evidence that we can get from nature and present this to human society to guarantee that our science explanation is really natural. For if we don’t have this/these hard evidence/s, then, what we are reading/studying/teaching in our human science is a supernatural scripted explanation of nature by Evolution Theory proponents only, labeled by Evolution Theory proponents as natural, presented in human society as natural. But in fact they are all supernatural, fable, pokemon styled, and mythological in explanation.
It is illogical and simply unreasonable to animate the inanimate nature and say that this is “natural” and called it naturalistic science. It is actually being done in cartoons, Walt Disney’s movies, Pokemon animes, Aessop’s fable stories, and the likes, and we can’t called them science!
So basically, Evolution Theory is inclined to supernatural, fable, pokemon style, and myth.

...what? Are you suggesting that scientists should actually speak with nature? Or do you mean in a more metaphorical sense, like when we say that scientists "interrogate" nature?

And then from nowhere comes the assertion that one particular theory is a fable. Again... what?

Quote:

Here is some additional information:

1. NATURAL: Science is about observing the physical universe and identifying, as best as can be determined, the processes that govern it. The act of identifying physical processes does not mandate the faith that the processes are all there is. THIS IS NATURAL SCIENCE. I agree with this.

To observe phenomena and set up theories to explain and describe them.

Quote:

SUPERNATURAL: Evolution Theory scientists and proponents, to get rid of somebody’s faith or religion, had quickly jump to supernatural, fable, pokemon style, and mythological science without knowing it! For they are the one who are giving mouth (literally) to nature just like they are saying that nature had revealed to them their own explanation! I mean, Evolution Theory scientists and proponents are just like saying literally that nature had revealed to them the process of species changes and it is best called, accdg to them, Evolution Theory. Observation is very important in science but animating the inanimate nature is not natural, it is supernatural!

What a bizarre thing to say! Why on Earth would this particular theory be non-scientific when in fact it's not? What makes the observation regarding life on Earth any different from any other observations? Why is biology suddenly supernatural? This makes absolutely no sense.

Quote:

2. NATURAL: Science acknowledges that nature is all that humans can interact with directly, and it excludes from consideration any subject matter where the scientific method cannot be applied. Unlike the practitioners of some other disciplines, scientists are generally able to define and respect their own boundaries. THIS IS NATURAL SCIENCE. I agree with this.

SUPERNATURAL: Since Evolution Theory scientists knew for sure that interacting to nature is very limited, then, they must give a limited explanation of nature, too! They must have boundaries. But in Evolution Theory, they had gone beyond the limit of nature.

Again, this makes no sense at all. How is life beyond nature? How do you even define "beyond nature"?

Quote:

Here’s how:

Supernatural Explanation: Creation Theory: It invokes Creator that reveals to human.

That's not a theory! There have been no observations or evidence of any creator at all, and so there's no theory.

Quote:

Supernatural Explanation: Evolution Theory. It invokes the direct supernatural participation of nature to human scientists or it invokes the supernatural power of human scientists to directy interact and communicate with nature.

Stop it, please! Now nature is somehow supernatural? And the scientific "interrogation" of nature is supernatural as well?

Quote:

Natural Explanation: Interrelation. It only tells the observed changes of nature without invoking the direct participation of both nature or creator-God. This must be taught in schools, in public and in naturalistic science.

What you're saying is that naturalistic science has nothing to do with nature.

Quote:

For example, if Kansas Board of Education will delete Evolution in schools, they should also delete Creation and use INTERRELATION only. So if the students would like to study beyond nature, then, give them two choices: Creation or Evolution.

This is utter rubbish right through. Creation is beyond nature simply because it's not true. Evolution is a fact of nature (that's right) and the theory of evolution is there to explain and describe evolution. Plus, you're suggesting that there are only two possibilities; Biblical creation or the theory of evolution. This is completely wrong.

Quote:

4. NATURAL: Naturalism does not assume or require that nature is "all there is".

That's what I'm saying, though. It's pointless to say that this is natural and that is supernatural.

Quote:

What naturalism does propose is that all natural phenomenon can be explained purely via natural causes, without needing to invoke supernatural causes.

Would they be natural otherwise?

Quote:

QUESTIONS are welcome.

Why don't you ask questions instead?

Calilasseia · 07-08-2007, 04:01 PM

I've found an explanation for all of this.

Samurai visited this parody religion site and thought it was real.

Note the Baptist Creation Science Fair page on that site, and one of the projects in the "Honourable Mentions" section:

Quote:

"Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False" - Paul Sanborn (grade 4)

Unfortunately samurai didn't realise the entire site was a parody courtesy of the Landover Baptist satire brigade, and bought into everything it told him ...

_Naturalist_ · 07-08-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

No, you are incorrect. When you study nature, it doesn't participate. You are the one who is doing all the gatherings, analyzing and giving conclusion. Maybe you are right, but basically you are wrong. You are only bias to yourself. It is round reasoning.

LOOK: Naturalistic science had already labeled humans as animals, why not ask every human if they really evolve or created or not? If both nature and species (except humans) can't talk, why bother to make them as standard in changes of species?! HUMANS can talk, can express themselves...then, ask them. If they all say that they had evolved from lower forms of animals, then, it is natural that humans are the product of evolution process! Then, Evolution is really natural.

This is what you consider good science? To ask people if they were created or if evolution is true? How can you even expect us to take you seriously? This has got to be a parody. Otherwise, how did the astronomers work out the orbits of the planets? Did they shout out at the night sky, and did the planets respond?

Reluctant Cannibal · 07-08-2007, 04:09 PM

Young samurai, your theory is intriguing, but it has a fatal flaw. Charles Darwin published the first edition of his great work 120 years before the first pokemon was discovered in downtown Yokohama. So unless you are proposing that Darwin had a time machine, or one of Jno. Osgood's handsome brass chronoscopes (with the ivory verniers and the spider's silk crosshairs), your proposal founders and sinks below the waves, leaving but a few fetid bubbles to mark its passing.

Smullyan-esque · 07-08-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Okay, so what you're saying (I think) is that the Theory of Evolution uses what you call supernatural explanations. Let's see.

Organism is born with subtly different DNA than it's parents. This is not supernatural.

The changes in its DNA make the organism slightly different (in appearance, etc) than it's parents. This is not supernatural either.

The differences that the organism has may make it a more effective hunter, or make it slightly easier to escape predators, or easier to reach food, or easier to hide, all based on the environment that the organism is living in. This is not supernatural.

If the organism is better at any of these things than it is more likely to reproduce and have offspring. This is not supernatural.

Over many, many generations, these small changes add up to larger changes. This is not supernatural.

I admit. I don't get it. Where is the supernatural explanation that evolution uses? You wouldn't be redefining supernatural, would you? How do you define supernatural?

I understood that. I agreed with that. That is what we're witnessing in nature. Changes occurs BUT it is simply called "interrelated process". It is not evolution. IT is INTERRELATION. No matter how long the time it may takes, it is called interrelation if only if we put science in naturalistic way. ALL animals in the world are interrelating to nature with respect to their places/surroundings and time. And that is fact. It is not evolution.

So it looks like you just object to the word choice. If we stop calling it "evolution" and start calling it "interrelation", you'll be happy?

...

...

That's the stupidist thing I've ever heard! How old are you, samurai? 8? No adult would agree with the entire concept, and then object to the name!

atheilicious · 07-08-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

I understood that. I agreed with that. That is what we're witnessing in nature. Changes occurs BUT it is simply called "interrelated process". It is not evolution. IT is INTERRELATION. No matter how long the time it may takes, it is called interrelation if only if we put science in naturalistic way. ALL animals in the world are interrelating to nature with respect to their places/surroundings and time. And that is fact. It is not evolution.

Disproving evolution by substitution of words?

"I can disprove evolution!!!"
Go ahead, do it then!
"Let me call it something else - 'interrelation' "
Wtf?
"See, just I disproved evolution!"
:Cheeky:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2007, 03:39 PM	#92
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	I'd like to know what samurai's definition of "evolution" is other than "ITS SUPERNATURALZ! LOLOLZ" Evolution, as far as science is concerned, means "change". We have no idea what you mean when you say "evolution". As far as we know, your ranting amounts to nothing more than "change in allele frequency over time is supernatural" which is obviously false.

07-08-2007, 03:46 PM	#93
Chuck Rightmire Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Billings, Montana Posts: 451	Hell, this BS is simply rewriting the terminology. His involvement of nature is just using a set of three words rather than god in his explanation and his interrelationship is evolution. He seems to be postulating "nature" as the aware entity in itself that most religions proclaim as a god. All he's doing is trying to corrupt "evolution" to take in into disrepute. This thread deserves to be locked at this point.

07-08-2007, 04:09 PM	#98
Reluctant Cannibal Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Home Counties, UK Posts: 147	Young samurai, your theory is intriguing, but it has a fatal flaw. Charles Darwin published the first edition of his great work 120 years before the first pokemon was discovered in downtown Yokohama. So unless you are proposing that Darwin had a time machine, or one of Jno. Osgood's handsome brass chronoscopes (with the ivory verniers and the spider's silk crosshairs), your proposal founders and sinks below the waves, leaving but a few fetid bubbles to mark its passing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.